Your argument is cogent, coherent and convincing. Unfortunately, most of the people who make a similar argument, especially Trump, use loaded terms like “deep state,” “loyalists”, and “purge” to advance the argument. This makes many people tune out the substance of the argument. If you want to see what you advocate happen, then you need better emissaries than Trump conveying the message to the public. And on that score, the movement you are trying to foment has failed utterly.
Agree with your well reasoned comments. Only suggestion is to reconsider your Carter vs Reagan comments. Carter actually created more jobs than Reagan at a faster rate. He deregulated transportation. Yes inflation was high but Carter inherited that from Nixon then Ford. Carter is the guy who made Volker fed chief and gave him the room to raise rates to whatever level it took. In his autobiography Volker notes that the massive rate increases into the teeth of the Presidential election helped create the misery index. But Volcker says Carter never once asked him to ease off
I’m not saying Carter was a great President but your compare and contrast of Carter and Reagan feels a little too oversimplified.
Thanks for your thoughts. I always get something out of them.
I enjoy the perspective. Any thoughts on ways to highlight relative competence within government? We need both the carrot and stick, just like strategy - it's both where to go and what to avoid. +1 to using the Chevron ruling to drive change at state level is such a good idea - how can we accelerate this?
I really like almost everything you write, and you are mostly on the right track, but then take a wrong turn. This post is like what happens when two entirely distinct diseases will initially cause a patient to present similar symptoms, and the doctor justifiably mistakes one for the other, but by an incorrect diagnosis prescribes a course of treatment which despite reliably improving overall health (e.g., better diet and exercise) still won't cure the root cause of the malady. As one example, ovarian cancer has a high survival rate if caught early, but often isn't, because for a long time the symptoms look just like those generated by a lot of other, common, but totally different problems.
I have a lot of experience in government, and from the inside one sees the real cancer which, from the outside looks like an allergy. Of course smarter, more competent people with better moral character, along with more accountability and better alignment between measurable outcomes and career prospects tend to make things better in almost any organization, and what the goverment does to undermine the strength of these factors takes a toll on performance. But not as much as this article assumes, and consequentially the strengthening of those factors would have far less impact than one would hope. No mere personnel policy, no matter how radical, can address the root causes of the big problems, which in our era would require nothing less than a complete overhaul of the way the whole state system functions and operates.
Excellent perspective(s), too many people keeping each other busy. Testing should definitely be reestablished, but not as a barrier. There still should be racial and gender affirmative measures as well, but not so intrusive.
Of course, the points you make are on the money. How we turn this around in a society that equates merit with white racism is going to be the big question.
Great and inspiring argument for the most part. (I take issue with schedule F being a major reform, as it would affect a tiny percentage of government employees, and 0% of gov contractors). While your overall argument is directly on point and inspiring, I see little practical guidance or strategy on *how* to restore merit. Disparate impact is still a concept with binding precedent.
But I have an idea, and as a successful litigator maybe I can help you/Cicero bring it to fruition. Sue government agencies for their hiring practices having a disparate impact on the people they serve.
For example, there are many Inspector General reports showing that social security employees serving disabled/impoverished/elderly customers make a ton of mistakes. One September 2023 report showed that SSA made around 25,000 processing errors *on one kind of workload* over a 2 year period. Of course Inspectors General don’t collect this data but I am sure that this disparately impacts minorities. Use disparate impact as a weapon against the bureaucracy until they realize that (a) merit protects minorities, and (b) disparate impact needs to go because it’s crushing them.
This would be a big project because you’d need to first collect data showing that government incompetence has a disparate impact. Then you’d have to sue large agencies.
Your argument is cogent, coherent and convincing. Unfortunately, most of the people who make a similar argument, especially Trump, use loaded terms like “deep state,” “loyalists”, and “purge” to advance the argument. This makes many people tune out the substance of the argument. If you want to see what you advocate happen, then you need better emissaries than Trump conveying the message to the public. And on that score, the movement you are trying to foment has failed utterly.
Joe
Agree with your well reasoned comments. Only suggestion is to reconsider your Carter vs Reagan comments. Carter actually created more jobs than Reagan at a faster rate. He deregulated transportation. Yes inflation was high but Carter inherited that from Nixon then Ford. Carter is the guy who made Volker fed chief and gave him the room to raise rates to whatever level it took. In his autobiography Volker notes that the massive rate increases into the teeth of the Presidential election helped create the misery index. But Volcker says Carter never once asked him to ease off
I’m not saying Carter was a great President but your compare and contrast of Carter and Reagan feels a little too oversimplified.
Thanks for your thoughts. I always get something out of them.
I enjoy the perspective. Any thoughts on ways to highlight relative competence within government? We need both the carrot and stick, just like strategy - it's both where to go and what to avoid. +1 to using the Chevron ruling to drive change at state level is such a good idea - how can we accelerate this?
I really like almost everything you write, and you are mostly on the right track, but then take a wrong turn. This post is like what happens when two entirely distinct diseases will initially cause a patient to present similar symptoms, and the doctor justifiably mistakes one for the other, but by an incorrect diagnosis prescribes a course of treatment which despite reliably improving overall health (e.g., better diet and exercise) still won't cure the root cause of the malady. As one example, ovarian cancer has a high survival rate if caught early, but often isn't, because for a long time the symptoms look just like those generated by a lot of other, common, but totally different problems.
I have a lot of experience in government, and from the inside one sees the real cancer which, from the outside looks like an allergy. Of course smarter, more competent people with better moral character, along with more accountability and better alignment between measurable outcomes and career prospects tend to make things better in almost any organization, and what the goverment does to undermine the strength of these factors takes a toll on performance. But not as much as this article assumes, and consequentially the strengthening of those factors would have far less impact than one would hope. No mere personnel policy, no matter how radical, can address the root causes of the big problems, which in our era would require nothing less than a complete overhaul of the way the whole state system functions and operates.
using facts and reason will get you no where with the left and the DC swamp. Its going to take more as they are immune to reason and common sense.
Excellent perspective(s), too many people keeping each other busy. Testing should definitely be reestablished, but not as a barrier. There still should be racial and gender affirmative measures as well, but not so intrusive.
Thank you for your evocative presentations
Gary
What racial and gender affirmative measures would be less intrusive? What is the right amount of intrusive?
Of course, the points you make are on the money. How we turn this around in a society that equates merit with white racism is going to be the big question.
Great and inspiring argument for the most part. (I take issue with schedule F being a major reform, as it would affect a tiny percentage of government employees, and 0% of gov contractors). While your overall argument is directly on point and inspiring, I see little practical guidance or strategy on *how* to restore merit. Disparate impact is still a concept with binding precedent.
But I have an idea, and as a successful litigator maybe I can help you/Cicero bring it to fruition. Sue government agencies for their hiring practices having a disparate impact on the people they serve.
For example, there are many Inspector General reports showing that social security employees serving disabled/impoverished/elderly customers make a ton of mistakes. One September 2023 report showed that SSA made around 25,000 processing errors *on one kind of workload* over a 2 year period. Of course Inspectors General don’t collect this data but I am sure that this disparately impacts minorities. Use disparate impact as a weapon against the bureaucracy until they realize that (a) merit protects minorities, and (b) disparate impact needs to go because it’s crushing them.
This would be a big project because you’d need to first collect data showing that government incompetence has a disparate impact. Then you’d have to sue large agencies.
No merit and all grift makes Johnny--a dull boy--king of The Hill